Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court was correct in concluding that the determination by the respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal to terminate the petitioner's employment based on his poor attitude and unsatisfactory job performance was rational, and not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Talamo v Murphy, 38 N.Y.2d 637, 639; see also, Matter of Rollick v Ambach, 97 A.D.2d 637; Matter of Quraishi v Nyquist, 55 A.D.2d 775; Matter of Going v Kennedy, 5 A.D.2d 173, affd 5 N.Y.2d 900).
There was no showing that the petitioner's dismissal was based on discrimination in violation of Executive Law § 296 (1) (a), resulting from the petitioner's handwriting disability. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.